Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Translate this header
VRT Noticeboard
Welcome to the VRT noticeboard

This page is where users can communicate with Commons Volunteers Response Team members, or VRT agents with one another. You can request permissions verification here, or anything else that needs an agent's assistance. This page is multilingual — when discussing tickets in languages other than English, please make a note of this and consider asking your question in the same language.

Please read the Frequently Asked Questions before posting your question here.

The current backlog of the (English) permissions-commons queue is: 7 days (graph)  update

Start a new discussion

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
VRT Noticeboard
VRT Noticeboard
Main VRT-related pages
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

Shortcuts: Commons:VRT/N • Commons:VRTN

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 90 days.

Ticket number 2016111910006337[edit]

Can the ticket below be used as "permission" for this same Jaan Poska statue in other properly licensed photographs?

Ticket=[1] on this file here:File:Jaan Poska monument Kadriorus, skulptor Elo Liiv, 2016.jpg Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ooligan: I can see the following files mentioned in the ticket.
The ticket isn't too detailed for me to offer any other advice. But fwiw, it shouldn't apply anywhere else. I'd really want to hear for from Kruusamägi as the agent who handled this ticket. ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, "it shouldn't apply anywhere else" means that other photos containing this same Jaan Poska statue would not be covered by this VRTS ticket (pending any additional information from Kruusamagi). Thanks for looking at the ticket. -- Ooligan (talk) 08:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kruusamägi, Could you please respond to my question above? Thank you, --Ooligan (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This ticket does not deal with any other images whatsoever. Just the ones mentioned there. (haven't I already answered that somewhere? I think I did) Kruusamägi (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 01:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Draft instructions for giving permissions to accounts to upload content from an organisation[edit]

Hi all

I've been working to help organisations (mainly in the UN) share their content on Commons for many years and one thing I've always found difficult is what happens when an organisation wants to share a lot of files at once, it becomes difficult for them to upload the files, or for me to do it for them. Recently I found out there is a was to for an organisation to give permission to an account to upload content from their organisation, however I can't find any instructions at all on how to do it, so I've started to draft some. User:John_Cummings/VRT_organization_permission

Please can you tell me if there are any issues with what I've drafted so far, what is missing etc. I'm not a VRT volunteer so I don't understand exactly how your internal systems work, but hopefully by simply using the standard VRT permission ID template this should make it simple to integrate. I know that it will make it easier for organisations to contribute content on a large scale and hopefully this will mean a larger number of organisations make mass donations to Commons.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As already pointed out at different venues, such generalisations don't work. Cases are different. Please negotiate with the VRT for individual solutions. Krd 08:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Krd, thanks, a couple of questions:
  1. Has anyone tried to write instructions before on this process? Are they still available somewhere?
  2. What specifically can't be documented/generalised? What specifically doesn't 'work' in terms of providing an overview or guidance for this process?
  3. What in your experience are the parts of the process that need to be created individually for different organisations?
  4. As you've helped people do this before, how did they find out about this as a possibility? I've never seen anything written down about it, I found out by accident after 10+ years of doing Commons uploads.
  5. Are there many Commons people who help organisations give permission for an account? I'd like to know their experiences as well.
Thanks again
John Cummings (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don‘t like this kind of interrogation. What exact problem do you intend to resolve? Krd 19:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Krd this is absolutely not supposed to be an interogation :) I'm just trying to understand why you think providing instructions for such a useful process won't work and what may be possible to document. You seem to be the only person who knows how this works, that's why I've asked you the questions. I guess the problems I'm trying to resolve is that while being able to approve an account for uploads is an extremely useful feature, currently there doesn't seem to be any way to find out this is possible beyond word of mouth and no clear way to learn how to do it. Thanks again, John Cummings (talk) 01:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that you want to know the process in detail only for the reason not to follow it. All solutions have been well outlined to you at different places: A. put the files under a free license at the source, or B. contact the VRT, briefly explain your intention, and follow their suggestion for the best solution for the individual case. --Krd 06:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've dealt with verified accounts before, but primarily in the case of individuals. For these situations involving individuals, a complex licensing statement is not needed; a mere online proof of identity will suffice (e.g. an email from an address listed on the person's official website confirming the name of their Wikimedia account). This is because once the identity is confirmed, releasing entirely self-created works is no different from any other Commoner who needs no verification because their works have no other online presence. I've dealt with organizations as well but the process has always been adhoc. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much King of Hearts, very helpful to explain that invdividuals can do this as well. Do you know if the process for individuals documented anywhere? Also could you describe your process when you've done this for organisations? I'd like to include it in the documentation :) John Cummings (talk) 04:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Verified accounts are to ensure that the person really is the person they are claiming. Regarding permissions this is only half of the story, because it doesn't at all say that the person is the copyright holder of the files in question, so is no replacement for explicit permission. --Krd 06:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Krd I think there is some kind of missunderstanding, I'm not suggesting anything is changed relating to explicit permission for uploading files, I'm just trying to document the process to make it easier for people to follow, or at the very least know it exists in the first place. I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by verifying an account. Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 07:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Asked and answered. Contact the VRT about your issue, and you will get help, in nearly all cases in form of very simple and easy to answer questions. It is impossible to create a helpful documentation that covers all possible scenarios, as copyright issues are different for each case and each source country. Most likely you are misleading users even more, and create additional work for the VRT. Please stop it. Krd 11:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The use-case for which John's suggested process is a solution is a fairly common one; I've used a very similar process, more than once, without issue. The questions he asked are not an "interrogation", and if you are not willing to answer them, then it is reasonable for anyone reading to dismiss your objections as unfounded. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SOHO imagery follow-up[edit]

Hi all. An email was sent to VRT from an @esa.int address on 02/27/2024 at 14:33 UT with a response from VRT coming in at 14:36 UT the same day opening ticket:2024022710008671. The contents of the @esa.int email pertains to the discussion at Template talk:PD-USGov-NASA#Revisiting SOHO warning: redux wherein the removal of the line in {{PD-USGov-NASA}} referencing the w:Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) is being discussed. Can a VRT agent weigh in to this discussion with the information given in the email?

Additionally, do the contents of this email have implications for all of the applicable SOHO imagery that may have been wrongfully deleted in the past? CoronalMassAffection (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW. there was an earlier interaction with ESA now 14 years ago. This interaction is logged under 2010012510051743. Please remember however that things can change in 14 years (notably since ESA itself applied a policy of using Creative Commons). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly there was exception for commercial use made back (on their own website), that the community didn't like and I asked about it and I basically got the same information back as was stated on the website and a confirmation that there was no explicit license like Creative Commons that applied. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I remember reading about this past communication in your comment to this discussion. I provided a direct quote from the recent email that VRT was copied on in the discussion that prompted the email to VRT which gives specific licenses. In hindsight, I probably should have inquired about this past correspondence in my request. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Police mug shots[edit]

There seem to have been conflicting views over whether mug shots taken by the NZ Police are public domain. (At any rate, the response I received from the NZ Police indicated that their mug shots are not freely licensed.) I raised this question here but did not get a response. Can the Admins please explain ticket:2024030110007726 ticket:2024022610012756 vs. ticket:2024021210003685? Thanks, Muzilon (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to the tickets but reading your posts and the deletion requests linked, I'm not sure what's going on. While the police does not claim copyright (as per Squirrel) they also say their mug shots are not freely licensed. What does that mean? If there is no clear indication the police is releasing mug shots under a free license or into the public domain, since COM:NEW ZEALAND does not state they already are, then the files should be delted and remain deleted. Bedivere (talk) 03:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the discussion at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Brenton_Tarrant.png. A contributor uploaded a NZ Police mugshot whose copyright status was questioned (by me). The uploader responded that he'd received some sort of copyright clearance from the NZ Police, which he forwarded to VRT. This "clearance" was apparently accepted by an Admin on 19-Feb-2024 - which would have set a precedent for NZ mugshots on Commons. (In the meantime I received a contrary email from the NZ Police saying their mug shots are not freely licensed.) Then on 24-Feb-2024 a different Admin deleted the mugshot with a note about "copyright violation". There have been previous cases where uploaders have asserted that NZ police mugshots are "public domain". So, perhaps Commons needs to add a definitive statement to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/New Zealand. Muzilon (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging User:The Squirrel Conspiracy and User:Krd, who seem to be the two Admins involved with these tickets. Muzilon (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ticket:2024030110007726 does not appear to be relevant to this case. ticket:2024022610012756 is the second ticket in this case. It specifies that the response that we received in ticket:2024021210003685 was an error, and pointed us towards the NZ PD's copyright page, which contradicted the first ticket. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. (I have corrected the pertinent ticket number in my OP.) It seems curious that the NZ Police apparently contradicted themselves on this issue. Muzilon (talk) 04:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Waf-logo.png[edit]

Can someone check if ticket:2024012910009677 can also apply to File:Waf-logo.png? It is currently being used on File:Alpagutpatentlilogo.jpg. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - contributions} 17:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matrix fwiw, the ticket only releases the file where it has been mentioned. The other file imo should perfectly be fine and seen as a derivative or so of what already was released under a free license? The only difference I see is that of the change in the script of the text. Best regards, ─ Aafī (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 11:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

VRTS tag[edit]

Hi

Per fr:wiki by @JohnNewton8: , could you do the same here? Because she have upload a photo here. So could you do it and add the tag as verified to the photo? Panam2014 (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Panam2014: this edit was not written by a VRT Agent, but mentions Ticket:2024032110006761. We have similar {{Verified account}} here.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: per his french talk page JohnNewton8 is a VRT agent. I am not able to add the template. Panam2014 (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Panam2014: I cannot access the ticket as it appears to be in a different queue. @Jeff G., JohnNewton8 is of course a VRT agent afaics and I believe they can help us here. As for placing the Verified tag, I don't see any need of doing so. Nesrine Slaoui has a total of six edits, out of which two uploads were zapped as copyright violations. ─ Aafī (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents: There is no need to let this go through VRT. If the uploader says it is an auto-potrait, then the process is unnecessary. The permissions become very clear at the same moment. ─ Aafī (talk) 17:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Panam2014: Per m:Special:CentralAuth/JohnNewton8, he is not now. Per this log, he never was. OTOH, you are not a French Wikipedia Admin, so you may not place that tag there.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: probably a mistake. see here. @Aafi: no need to a tag in the photo but a tag is needed in her user page to avoid a risk a people will ask for proof that she is NS. Panam2014 (talk) 00:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Jeff G.: agents who have access to the global permissions queues can be located through logs on Meta, not those who have access to specific language queues or other queues of "local nature". They're still a VRT agent having access to a specific view. Such logs could only be found on our internal wiki. I'm certain that this ticket is is info-fr queue to which John has access. ─ Aafī (talk) 04:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Panam2014 "May" is a very weird assumption given the activeness of this user. If they're uploading their own work, no body would be asking them who they are unless there is a doubt. Their username is not blocked either for any kind of impersonation. If in any case permissions are sought on any file, these should be clarified on an individual cases unless there is something like a "bulk" or a plenty of images that are on the way to be uploaded and might need the permission. I'd have perhaps agreed to place the Verified account tag if the wiki username was different from the real name, where people would surely have doubted the uploader's identity. This is not the case here. ─ Aafī (talk) 04:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aafi: But French users asked her to prove her identity to avoid any theft, which she accepted. The same objection could have been made on Wikimedia Commons. But the simplest thing would be to take the ticket validated by John here without asking her to send the verification elements a second time. Because in itself it is easy to take the name of a famous person and publish their photos here. Panam2014 (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aafi: I also think that since she has provided some proof via VRT, it is legitimate to add that tag on her user page on Commons. And I think the opposite of what you said: since her user name is one of a real person, a verification of her identity is necessary. Panam2014 made this request after asking me, and I declined it since I am not a VRT agent now. Yann (talk) 12:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann, hmm. I really don't have an idea what is in the ticket. It is in a different queue to which I don't have access. My opposing to tagging the account as verified is based on very low activity of the user. @JohnNewton8: can tell us what is in the ticket. ─ Aafī (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I confirm that:

  • I am a vRT agent, a sysop and an OS on fr-WP
  • Through the above mentionned ticket (on info-fr file), user:Nesrine Slaoui confirmed her identity

Regards JohnNewton8 (talk) 05:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganímedes, JohnNewton8, Yann, and Aafi: could you conclude the request? An admin could also made a soft redirect. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added a note on her user page. Yann (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've got not enough permission to see the ticket. Sorry. --Ganímedes (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason for account verification without cause at Commons. --Krd 11:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 11:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Ticket:2013102510001373[edit]

A FFD was filed on Wikipedia in December 2022 discussing whether this OTRS ticket releases YG Entertainment album covers after October 25, 2013 under the CC-BY-2.0 license, in addition to covers released on October 25, 2013 and before. The discussion was closed as keep as is, as it was unclear if covers released after the sending of this ticket were also released under the CC-BY-2.0 license. Could someone from VRT please check the contents of this exchange and see if post-2013 covers are included in this ticket? JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say this ticket is completely invalid, as it doesn't mention at all which files it applies to, and all followup e-mails could ne be delivered. --Krd 04:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to this comment on the FFD by @Xia (who obtained the permission from YG), this ticket resulted from someone from YG uploading some cover art from the agency under a CC license. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 03:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
not again, ah. seriously, how many times are we going to pull this out of the cupboard. YG's marketing team released those images. Yes, chances are that person doesn't work there anymore after more than 10 years of the initial ticket. Feel free to email YG for a clarification if you want to at another email address... Xia (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Bongo Cat Redraw.png[edit]

This VRT-confirmed file is User:GiraffeWorld's COM:DERIV close redrawing of a meme image by named Twitter user Strayrogue. Under COM:DERIV, the original copyright holder must also license the underlying work for reuse.

Can somebody with VRT access confirm for me whether ticket:2019100310000707 includes confirmation that that Strayrogue licenced their work to GiraffeWorld for reuse in this particular way? Or is it just GiraffeWorld confirming that they personally drew the uploaded image? Belbury (talk) 10:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Belbury: It is not confirmed in the ticket the uploader is the same person as the creator of the twitter image. They appeared just using it to create this image. It was thought the image just consists of simple geomatric shapes. Ellywa (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ellywa: Thanks. So there's no suggestion that it was created with the permission of the Twitter user, just that the uploader and/or VRT reviewer felt that the original drawing of a cat was simple geometry so we didn't need to seek permission from the artist or credit them in the author field?
I'm puzzled that the image isn't actually flagged as {{PD-geometry}} - or that we haven't just used the original Twitter image! I'll take it to a deletion discussion over the "no original authorship" claim, if there's no permission here. Belbury (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Ballent's pictures, category and gallery[edit]

Dear Commons Volunteers. Thank you for your time. A month ago I have uploaded several pictures of Sara Ballent (a dead relevant scientist), specifying owner and authors. The owner sent the permission email (I have receive the email too). However, it seems that the permissions were no enough. Could you please help me in understanding the reason? I have spent a lot of time in this small project (dealing with non wikimedians is a real hard work). Regards, Fernando. FMA (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a ticket number? --Ganímedes (talk) 09:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 12:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Licensing VRT verification for multiple images at once[edit]

Hello,

I've recently hired a few photographers to take photos on my behalf for use on Wikimedia and Wikipedia: That they would be uploaded and released with eligible licenses (CC-BY and/or CC-BY-SA) was an explicit part of discussions prior to payment and the shoots.

However, there are hundreds, if not thousands of photos that will be uploaded, and asking the photographers to clear a VRT release for each and every image isn't reasonable. I was told that a license template (such as this one: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Charles_University_permission) can be created to be applied to multiple images for this sort of situation, but even if I can figure out how to create those templates myself (which I may or may not be able to do), I still require assistance from a VRT member to sign off on the licensing information for it to be verified, correct?

Can a VRT member let me know what they need from me (in terms of copies of emails and messages to act as proof of licensing information) or the photographers (if the VRT needs to communicate with them directly?) so I can create the template?

Thank you!

MajoraZ (talk) 05:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't it reasonable? I think it's best to let the photographers provide their permission with the list of uploaded file the permission applies to. That's daily business for everybody. Krd 11:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2022110510005531[edit]

Can someone please check this ticket? On the file page the uploader claims to have bought the copyright and usage rights from the photo studio Photoatelier ISO25 ("Von Viveka04 erworbenes Copyright plus Nutzungsrechte durch ISO25. Vertrag zugesandt"). This obviously cannot be true because the copyright (or Urheberrecht, rather) is non-transferable by German law. If the ticket was issued on the same claim, you may want to reconsider. --2003:C0:8F26:B900:9DD2:C6D4:9052:5C73 22:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it (recent post, it was discussing a book cover, but I'm not sure where it was) while you can't actually transfer copyright in Germany, you can sell an unlimited license, even an exclusive one, which has pretty much the same effect. I presume that could be an exclusive and unlimited license, which would have exactly the same effect as transferring copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 03:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can sell your images with any license you like, but that would be for the copyright holder to decide. So, we are going in circles: We need the consent of the copyright holder.
However that may be, the claim that the user has "bought" the copyright definitely is false. They may have made the claim in good faith, but that does not alter the fact that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of copyright here, and I would not trust the uploader with any other claims they may have made concerning the license. --2003:C0:8F4D:A00:CD24:EA5A:255F:3F46 09:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously have no way to assess the legal expertise of someone posting anonymously from an IP address, but I do not believe a CC license requires the explicit consent of a copyright holder, as long as there is a clear chain of consent. If there is a document from the copyright holder granting party B an unlimited license, including full rights to relicense, then as I see it party B is perfectly capable of granting a valid CC license. Yes, we might need VRT to validate that said document exists although, honestly, if party B is an established GLAM, government, NGO, etc., I presume that in the absence of contrary evidence, we'd take their word exactly as we usually do for similar claims of copyright transfer or work-for-hire by similar organizations in countries that allow that. - Jmabel ! talk 19:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that reasoning. I usually require further evidence/documentation of such facts, but the end result of that logic I second. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you make your reasoning depend on your assessment of my legal expertise. In other words, you are making this an ad personam argument. I cannot see that my IP address says anything more or less about my legal expertise than a registered nickname would.
Anyway, I am not asking that you believe in me or my legal expertise. I am simply asking that you get your information about German Urheberrecht from wherever you like. Ask your German colleagues, or take it from Wikipedia, or the source of your choice.
I felt it was my responsibility to give you the information and this warning so you could act upon it, and that's that. If you decide that this information is untrustworthy simply because it comes from an IP user, and you are instead going to trust an uploader who has made a claim that is definitely false ("Von Viveka04 erworbenes Copyright") and you prefer to just wait and see if the copyright holder will sue Wikimedia Commons, well, that's your business. I am not going to be the one who is going to get into trouble. So now do what you will. --2003:C0:8F1E:700:E952:4631:E674:7C12 12:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket is valid. The claim that copyright cannot be transferred is entire nonsense. --Krd 12:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 12:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Anne Karine Dybdal.jpg[edit]

Hi, Could someone please review the file (listed as a screenshot) and the report on the VRT listed in the source. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst: For me it shows, "This ticket does not exist, or you don't have permissions to access it in its current state". I guess the ticket is in a specific language queue. ─ Aafī (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nsaa:  ? Krd 16:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024051410005487[edit]

Can someone check ticket:2024051410005487? Someone just replaced bunch of PD-old templates with {{PermissionTicket|id=2024051410005487}}, which makes very little sense to me. Not sure why we need VRT ticket for PD files but we definitely need licenses. Jarekt (talk) 02:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who replaced things where? Krd 07:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Krd: Evidently, Mussklprozz replaced with or added that template some 3542 times per this search.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G., @Krd, we received permission for the whole Category:Media contributed by the Musée Saint-Raymond of Toulouse from the museum. I was not aware that the permission tag would replace any licence tags. Mussklprozz (talk) 14:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mussklprozz it is usually task of VRT volunteer to add {{PermissionTicket|id=2024051410005487}} to the files, not other people. That is to prevent users adding bogus {{PermissionTicket}}s the their files. You also removed bunch of license tags from the files, like here. Use pet scan to find the rest. --Jarekt (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jarekt I am a VRT volunteer. Mussklprozz (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem was obviously that someone placed the licence tag into the permissions field, where it does not belong. Thanks for providing the petscan. I restored the licence tag into the files listed therein. Mussklprozz (talk) 08:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mussklprozz: Why does it not belong there?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding Jeff's question. I have about 60,000 uploads, virtually all of them with the license in the permissions field. - Jmabel ! talk 15:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it should be in the License section of the file description. One type of fact in one place. To make automatic processing of file descriptions feasible. – Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having a separate licensing section is certainly appropriate, and some of our upload tools do that automatically, but is there anywhere you can find it as a standard or even a guideline that they shouldn't be in the Permissions section? Again, this has been my general practice for approximately two decades, and this is literally the first time I've been told I'm doing it wrong. - Jmabel ! talk 16:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I beg your pardon, @Jmabel, no personal blame intended. I also don't know of any official Wikipedia guideline that recommends this. As you wrote yourself, it is just appropriate. Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mussklprozz thank you for fixing them. --Jarekt (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 12:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

ticket #2013032610004579[edit]

ticket #2013032610004579 I was wondering if this ticket has the permission from the architect or the photographer Other photographs of the museums interior do not have a VRT ticket, therefore my doubt. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no museum photographs in this ticket. Which image do you refer to? Krd 08:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ticket seems to be valid for several files, File:Mercedes-Benz-Museum 2015-01 by-RaBoe -003.jpg, File:Mercedes-Benz-Museum 2015-01 by-RaBoe -014.jpg, File:Mercedes-Benz-Museum 2015-01 by-RaBoe -008.jpg among others. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's completely invalid. Krd 08:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Krd: what is "completely invalid"? The ticket? Paradise Chronicle's last statement? Something else? Jmabel ! talk 14:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel, fwiw, the ticket does not mention any of the files mentioned by @Paradise Chronicle. It does impact some images but those are not what PC has stated above. I am producing the list of images this ticket impacts:
With that, I don't think there is anything else that is missed. This ticket is not valid for anything else. ─ Aafī (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarification. The ticket is invalid for the use of museum interior, see: Commons:Deletion requests/User:Raboe001/Permission MBM. Krd 16:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket #2009063010002351[edit]

Requesting check on ticket #2009063010002351 — Does the ticket owner claim to be from Gibson Ridge Radar? A Commons patroller added it + the ticket immediately after removing a US-GOV copyright template. Basically, who claimed the ticket? The person on Twitter who posted the public-domain info, or “Gibson Ridge Radar” as stated by the patroller who added the ticket. WeatherWriter (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket is from 2009, last entry from 2012, and I won't say if or if not it was valid in 2009, but in any case not sufficient per today's standards. I think it shouldn't be used for new files which are not mentioned in it. --Krd 09:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Krd: This opens a bit of a can of worms as to what licensing would be correct for this file, which is a screenshot/recording of public domain data rendered using a non-free software program. I tagged the file with the ticket because it pertains specifically to screenshots from that software program, but if the ticket is insufficient the file (and potentially several others) may need deleted depending on what its actual copyright status is. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 09:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(See also this for additional background on the issue.) Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 09:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you see any license mentioned in the ticket, or any claim who is a copyright holder of what for which reason, and/or why permission from the sender is required at all? I don't. Krd 10:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little confused; Are you saying that permission isn't needed for screenshots of public domain radar data rendered using non-free software programs? I would be fine with that, I just didn't think that was the case. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 10:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not totally sure and I haven't read all discussions, but I think if a ticket is applied, it should be clear from the ticket who is the copyright holder for which reason, because otherwise they cannot give any permission.
At first impression I'd think that if nothing copyrighted is reproduced, then no permission is needed. Krd 10:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions to read related to radar images:Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/05#File:Evolution of the Minden–Harlen tornado.gif (Request for clarification from EN Wiki) and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alexander City Tornado Emergency in 2023.jpg. The deletion request was about a radar screenshot from RadarOmega, a radar application just like Gibson Ridge Radar. WeatherWriter (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard&oldid=878374338"